> On Apr 12, 2018, at 9:50 AM, Kathleen Moriarty 
> <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It was right of the chairs to put this back out to the list for
> confirmation as they have the ability to pull a document back if they
> decide that is the right course of action.

I'm not skilled in process issues.  The process is hopefully there to
arrive at higher goals in a mostly orderly way.  The think that still
puzzles me is that I've seen no argument that the present scope is not
as narrow as I described, and perhaps even too narrow for some use
cases that apply to the immediate adopters.

Sure the WG/IESG/IETF can at the end of this discussion continue to
publish the document.  But it is still flawed, and the reluctancce
to fix it or even discuss the defects in a meaningful way is IMHO
unfortunate.   Why is it so important to preclude applicability in
a broad range of future use-cases?  Why is it so urgent to save a
few weeks, when stands take years to go through the process?

The issue under discussion here (section 8 of the draft) got no
substantive discussion during the original WG LC.  Shumon noted
the downgrade issue, and asked whether to fix or just document.
Ben nodded OK, everyone else stayed silent, and then the text
in section 8 appeared and was never discussed.

I am truly sorry I did not pay enough attention to the list
back then to notice and raise the issue at that time.  I also
appreciate that we're rather late in the process.  However, I
still hope that substantive technical limitations to the
originally intended scope of the document can be repaired
even at this stage.

Yes, it'll cost a few weeks, but a new RFC to correct the
defect will take another year, and may never happen deterring
the use of this extension in most candidate applications.
That'd be a real shame...

-- 
        Viktor.

_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta

Reply via email to